Why Are Religious People (Generally) Less Intelligent?

Catching up on my Xmas readings, I dived into the recent meta-analysis on the negative correlation between IQ and religious beliefs, which, at least in my case, makes sense: I am highly religious but not very intelligent… or is it the other way around? [Sorry, I’m not smart enough to figure it out].

The paper has very few methodological weaknesses, but as we know correlation does not mean causation – though correlations do have causes.

The key question, then, is why religious people are generally less intelligent. And the authors did not shy away from the answer, offering three compelling explanations:

(1) Intelligent people are generally more analytical and data-driven; formal religions are the antithesis: they are empirically fluffy and their claims are often in direct contradiction with scientific evidence, unless they are interpreted metaphorically – but maybe intelligent people are not that keen on metaphor. Another way of putting it is that people with a high IQ are more likely to have faith in science, which isn’t religion’s best friends (yes, yes, I do know about Einstein’s quotes).

(2) Intelligent people are less likely to conform, and, in most societies, religiosity is closer to the norm than atheism is. Although this interpretation is based on extrapolation, it still makes sense: first, smarter people tend to be less gullible; second, in most societies religious people outnumber atheists and agnostics - though global levels of religiosity have been declining, and there is substantial cultural variability in religiosity levels.

(3) Intelligence and religiosity are “functionally equivalent”, which means that they fulfil the same psychological role. Although this intriguing argument contradicts points 1 and 2, it deserves serious consideration. Humans will always crave meaning. Religion – like science and logical reasoning – provides them with a comprehensive framework or system to make meaningful interpretations of the world. At times, religion and science are in conflict; but they can also act in concert, complementing each other to answer non-falsifiable and falsifiable questions, respectively. The authors conclude that some people satisfy their desire to find meaning via religion, whereas others do so via logical, analytical, or scientific reasoning – and IQ predicts whether you are in the former or latter group.

It is noteworthy that these three explanations assume that IQ influences religiosity rather than vice-versa, which seems plausible: IQ levels remain very stable after childhood, whereas religiosity levels keep fluctuating – childhood IQ predicts adult IQ, but childhood religiosity is a very poor predictor of adult religiosity.

However, the authors forget to consider an important possibility, which is that the relationship between IQ and religiosity could be caused by a third variable, namely personality. Indeed, Openness to Experience, a personality dimension that predicts an individual’s propensity to display higher levels of intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, and be driven by counter-conformist and rebellious attitudes, is positively correlated with IQ, and, like IQ, stable from an early age. Furthermore, there is also ample evidence suggesting that higher Openness may cause IQ gains in adulthood because open individuals are more likely to invest time and resources acquiring expertise and knowledge.

By the same token, it is feasible to expect open individuals to be less interested in religion. Their hungry mind makes them gravitate towards scientific or factual explanations, and artistic sensations, rather then religious dogma. This would be in line with the positive association between Openness and tolerance for ambiguity – open people can handle complexity and ambivalence – and the negative link between Openness and need for closure – open people are less likely to see the world in black-or-white terms and are generally more comfortable with uncertainty. Since religion tends to eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty, its “utility” or psychological benefits should be greater for less than more open people, which would explain why religion appeals more to less intelligent individuals – who are generally less open. But what do the data say?

Although there are no meta-analytic studies on the joint or interactive effects of Openness and IQ on religiosity, there are plenty of studies examining the relationship between personality and religiosity. The first large-scale review reported that Openness is negatively correlated with religious fundamentalism and formal religious adherence, albeit weakly. However, Openness was positively correlated with spirituality and “mature religiosity”, e.g., emotionality, quest for meaning, and community, without strict adherence to formal religion. In the same study, religiosity was negatively related to Psychoticism – a trait that captures an individual’s typical levels of self-control, law-abidingness, and empathy. To make matters more complex, Psychoticism and Openness are positively correlated, so the relationship between personality and religiosity may not be straightforward.

It also seems plausible that different elements or facets of Openness to Experience are differentially related to religiosity and spirituality. For example, a study found that people’s emotional appreciation of religion was negatively related to the more rational or intellectual aspects of Openness, but positively related to artistic imagination and aesthetic sensitivity, two other facets of Openness. Furthermore, non-linear relationships between Openness and attitudes towards religion can also be expected. In particular, individuals with higher Openness may be generally more reticent to embrace formal religious beliefs – but, on the other hand, people who are extremely open would be more able to understand and tolerate individuals who hold such beliefs, even if they don’t share them. In that sense, hardcore atheism and agnosticism are as symptomatic of rigidity and narrow-mindedness as extreme religiosity, and highlight an inability to understand alternative Weltanschauungen or opposite systems of values. In any event, associations between IQ and religiosity are at least in part determined by personality traits and values. And let's not forget that there are plenty of people who are both smart and religious - as well as many individuals who are agnostic and dim.

You say that people with higher IQ's tend toward facts and reason. Does archeological evidence count as facts? What about cosmology, the origin of life, NDE's, miracles, and the philosophical argument? Much more than fairy tales, the Bible is factual, quite rational, and about things that we have evidence for.

I'm sorry, but what is factual about the Bible? That the "stories" written in the Bible take place during a certain area or timeframe that can be documented? Just because the Red Sea exists does not prove it was parted.

I'm sorry, but what is factual about the Bible? That the "stories" written in the Bible take place during a certain area or timeframe that can be documented? Just because the Red Sea exists does not prove it was parted.

I'm not really sure what this poster is trying to say, and I do believe in the Bible, not as pure history, but rather history from God's perspective. And I do believe there is a lot of factual truth in the Bible.
But I guess my question is: we believe a lot of things about history that have only been found in one source or in one document; why do we so quickly dismiss the Bible on the same grounds, saying that some of the information is not found elsewhere (even when some of it is)?

I'm not sure that's true just like I don't think religion comes from only "one document." Most facts in science have more than one source to support them. The bible on the other hand, is written like a fable.

Sometimes we have to be serious. Science is NOT a religion. In fact science is a philosophy which seeks to experience the world through the five rational senses. The Bible is a philosophy which seeks to experience the world through the intuitive sixth sense. Naturally different conclusions will be drawn. However it neither means the truth in one negates truth in the other. Philosophy allows for alternate truth. Religiosity relies on rigidity while spirituality is philosophical.
Fundamentalist Atheism is same as Fundamentalist islam or Christianity. It is rigid and close-minded. The operative word for religiosity is Fundamentalism.
Those who see Atheism as a philosophy and not the TRUTH fare better. Then they understand there are other truths.
I am a spiritual but not religious Christian and I believe the Bible is true. I do not fight over whether another philosophy is true. The light of God shines in all for me. One thing I desire is to see men relent from "four legs good, two legs bad" theories!

To say that we believe a lot of things that have only been referenced in one document is not accurate. More and more, legitimate scholarship demands a qualifier that "this story cannot be corroborated." The bible has been taken for fact for centuries, but in the modern information age, we have ready access to documents that should be able to corroborate the bible and yet don't. The exodus, for instance. Egypt was meticulously documenting their history at the time of the Great Exodus and yet there is no corroboration. In fact, there is more evidence AGAINST the exodus taking place than for it taking place. Additionally, corroboration for Jesus' existence. There were multiple historians at that time, documenting great ppl of that time and there is absolutely no mention of Jesus at all. I would venture to say that, other than the fact that this was something we are told to believe as children and so we just take for granted it is true, if this information was presented in any other fashion, it would be dismissed as lore of an ancient society and not fact.

no they are not facts. those are examples of reason/evidence. the information gained from them leads us to create logical explanations based on that evidence. using what you know to draw conclusions that can't be personally experienced. the bible uses some reason (i.e. morals and the very idea of god is reasonable since it is hard to imagine a beginning with no creator) but uses no evidence to support the claims and the book is far from factual or reasonable. something an anonymous person wrote down 2000 years ago about an invisible being that watches over us of whose, no claims can be scientifically proven is not fact. also forbidding people to wear clothes that contain multiple fabrics, or commanding you to utterly worship something you cannot experience (no personal psychological encounters dont count) is not reasonable. what evidence do you mean? evidence of christianity being true or censuses that prove jesus existed? unsure of what you're referring too.

U don't need to see to believe for example dark matter hve we seen it? But so many believe it's there
Science as factual as it is, can be considered a lie as well because one discovery can make every thing you've ever studied fall apart. I'm a science student and I'm religious as well don't be close minded coz u think religion has no truth to it
( excuse my grammar )

Actually, archaeology DEBUNKS the bible. the jews in Egypt or wandering in the wilderness for 40 years? never happened. the flood? yep, that never happened either. check out what famous biblical archeologists like William G. Dever and Israel Finkelstein have to say. they admit that a very large majority of "stories" in the bible are just that....stories. oh, and copied from Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian myths, to boot!

Wow, where have you been.
Quote from the leading Egyptologist on Mummies, Dr. Briar "..archeology has proven a lot of things in the bible." In context he is calling into question the actual number of Israelis who left Ancient Egypt. Egyptologists have no question of Jewish existence in ancient Egypt as there are remnants of a Papyri where the King refers to them as the "'Hap'eru" (i.e. Hebrew) in an order of food supplies to be given to them and other workers on a certain project (lost when parchment breaks).

For more please refer to the scholarly renowned (recognize by actual Archeologists, believing and non-believing) "Biblical Archeology Review".
For an amazing series of lectures by the world's leading expert on Mummies and evidences of both 'Joseph in Egypt' and 'Moses and the Exodus' please reference the "Egyptian History" lectures by the Learning Company.
For a comprehensive list of the absolute amazing infallability archeaologically speaking (of the Old Testament), please see the monumental tomb by K.A. Kitchen "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

As an open minded person myself (I've studied philosophy,Al-Quran, Tanakh, Greek New Testament, Budhist theology, B'Hai) and had many friendly debates with agnostics / atheists; you do yourself great harm to be so close-minded and patently ignorant with regards to the mountain of archeological evidence in support of the bible.

Should you wish to criticize the bible there are better modes than that one. You've actually chosen it's strongest achievement. A great plethera of sites have been discovered by the use only of the numerous books that make up the bible.

Best of wishes, and please excuse my English. It is a second language.

My followup question would be this: what is the difference between the mean IQ of both populations? Most people fall within the middle standard deviations.
Also, IQ might be an artifact of education, and this gap may be due to educational differences between the two populations.

I am an atheist and I tend to find my brethren to be less accepting of the possibility that what others think could be true, even if we are so sure that it is not. And I find this to be the case not just in the area of god v. no god, but in many areas of intellectual inquiry. It is possible, though I don’t believe it to be the case in the area of religion, that we are wrong in the matter. You can’t be truly intelligent if you can’t admit that you may not know it all, no?

Is a more open mind one that must believe it has found the truth and know it has reached a finite conclusion or one that is open to the faith that there may be more? Is not having to know what the answer is really a sign of less intelligence? And is having understanding of other’s beliefs a sign of less intelligence as well?

In my experience, it is my religious friends that I find to be more reasonable. They are consistently more open to hearing and considering my opinions and other possibilities in general than my fellow hard line atheist on varying issues. So they are dumber for it?

I am actually embarrassed often at how self-absorbed, self-righteous, all knowing and closed minded my atheist friends can be. I am even more bothered by how anti-religious they are. It borders on hate. Are hate and lack of understanding characteristics akin to being more intelligent? Why does religion bother them so, if they are so smart? Why are they so antagonistic towards religion and disrespectful of my religious friends? The answer I receive is usually somewhere along the lines of the fact that religious people are stupid. My religious friends don't express such disdain for non-believers.

How ironic it is that it is supposed via "scientific" study that open mindedness and intelligence are no more determinable than just by the results of a simplistic and much over valued measurement of smarts.

There are so many things wrong with this one sentence post. First, you have no shred of evidence as to its truth. Second, you assume "fanaticism" where there is no evidence to support it. In fact, the poster was quite calm and sensible. Third, your "post" reeks of irritation with any religious entity, and borders on paranoia, which is ridiculous. Fourth, it's spelled "scammed".

Which all leads me to point out that, if you are, in fact, an atheist, you probably just proved his/her point.

My dear friend, it is my intelligence which leads me to conclude that you most certainly are not an atheist. In fact if you were an atheist, you would never assume that an intelligent person would believe you were. Hmmm, perhaps the article is on to something there.

There is a problem with your conclusion. It is incorrect. Sadly, this means then that you are certainly not as intelligent as you seemingly believe yourself to be. But your hubris is without any doubt intact. Atheist? If so, thank you for proving my point.

The FFRF freedom from religion foundation publishes a monthly tabloid for non believers. Numerous [mostly anonymous] hate letters are printed monthly as sent in by Christians spouting hate and crude insults with loads of derision for the infidels.
I know of none of my Atheists friends who would ever send such messages to a religious organization.
I have my doubts that this poster is in fact, an Atheist.

None of my atheist friends to the best of my knowledge have done such a thing either. Still, some have expressed disdain for Christmas in general and specifically towards people saying "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays". "Merry Christmas" I have been told is "insulting" to them. Or it "makes them uncomfortable". Or they "don't want to hear it". Jesus Christ, really?

Then of course as well, there is every December stories of atheists who insist on putting up a display on their yards or next to Christmas and/or Hanukah displays touting atheism. It's embarrassing.

Can't we just let the Christians/Jews or whoever whenever celebrate their holiday without interference and mocking?

This type of behavior is the sign of a superior intelligence? No more so then hateful letters in my opinion.

Telling people they make you uncomfortable is not being rude. People in society need to relate with neighbors. Lots of people who enjoy Christmas dislike the constantly recycled music played October through January, is it offensive for them to point it out?

I have never heard of such a thing as an "atheist" display around Christmas. You are making it up, and to quote your prior comment, it would be rude for people to express displeasure with so called atheist displays, whatever that means.

The US is dominated by people who claim to be religious, stop pretending to be put upon.

I'm an atheist, and I have no problem saying "Merry Christmas" to friends and relatives who know I am an atheist, and some of them are fellow atheists as well. "Merry Christmas" to me is about feeling good about giving to each other, good food, and spending time with people I love. For me, it has no religious connotations whatsoever. It's how I was raised, and it's part of my culture.

I was raised to be Christian, my mother made sure us kids went to church every Sunday, even though by the time I was a teenager, I was pretty sure religion was a farce, something that my college education helped crystallize.

I think I am an open-minded as a person can be. I travel a lot and enjoy talking to people from other countries and cultures to try to understand their points of view. I think I've learned a lot from these conversations.

If people want to pursue their religious beliefs, that's up to them. My sister is pretty entrenched in her Christian religion, and she knows where I stand. But we respect each other and do not argue--instead we talk.

So your friends do not represent all atheists. Maybe you need to meet more people?

I can send you to a number of posts on this website that address the similarities of fanatics and the hard core "humanists" who all too often have a hard time understanding other people's perspectives. You will find that your fire breathing fundamentalists have good company among their non-believing relatives in cognitive non-flexibility. Under the surface they all feel any disagreement is a threat to their very existance.

Thank you for your personal observations, I found them very interesting. At the outset I must state that I am a religious person but perhaps I should qualify this a little further as there are so many generalisations drawn about the meaning of 'being religious'; firstly, I am a person who believes in a 'first cause', an 'intelligent creator' of all things. Personally, I find it difficult to see another explanation after doing the math. I am a student of the Bible, and my comments come from a Christian, not Jewish or other background.

If a person believes in a (much) higher intelligence than himself he 'should' recognise a number of things; That his view, at least in social or public domains, is of no more importance than that of another persons, He should, as a result be Humble, Patient, Tolerant. If he believes in a loving god, as I do, he should also be considerate and kind to others regardless of whether he receive this 'in kind' from others.

This, recognition of humankinds considerable limitations, might go a long way to explaining the qualities you have observed amongst your friends.

But, How does one 'measure', these personal qualities. If they cant be measured in Watts of Empathy or Kilojoules of Kindness are they actually real or of any real value? Are they the qualities of intelligence, If we can't directly measure them, doesthis mean they have no value at all?

We all, intrinsically, know that these qualities have the utmost importance for Human Kind succeeding in its management of our planet and our environment and our society, without them we will be lost.

Religious people (or at least religious people like me) are viewed as stupid because we choose to read a book that highlights these characteristics as desirable, essential and valuable and we choose to try to emulate these things.

I am also a student of science, especially cosmology, and I love the exploration of understanding our universe and our world....and our minds.

I have so often encountered, from such a vast number of agnostic/atheistic folks the simple statement. 'I don't believe in religion, I believe in science'. If this statement in itself doesn't smack of religiosity, when asked what they mean by this, the answers are usually of a philosophical or religious nature! They, in fact, have a belief system, a form of faith that is founded on theories that have most often never been proved.

I am content with the values of my faith and at the same time so eager to see the real, direct evidences of realities yielded by scientific explorations.

You must have very unusual atheist friends. I, and all the non-believers I know, admit we could possibly be wrong, and we certainly don't claim to have all the answers. It's the religious, in my experience, that claim to have "the answer".

Personally, I appreciated your comment. I am an academic, and my post-graduate degrees are all rooted in scientific fields. My experiences are quite the opposite of what this author purports as factual. Ironically enough, the more advanced I became in my fields of study, I found a greater proportion of people whom did believe in a higher power.

I can never remember a time when I didn't just believe in God, but I can say that as my education & life experiences expanded, my faith only grew stronger.

I pay little attention to those that require proof of God. Faith does not require tangible proof, because the proof is in one's heart and spirit.

How do you prove love? I do not find it necessary to discount, ridicule, or shame others for loving whomever they chose to love. I don't expect someone to give me a reason why a person loves someone that perhaps I can not stand! Why does someone love another that treats them poorly, abuses them, or cheats on them? Human emotions and intellect are not necessarily correlated, and the never ending quest to quantify and qualify emotions is ridiculous. When someone calls into questions my intellect solely because I believe in God, I ask them if they have ever loved another. For me, it is the same premise.

It is very disheartening for me when my agnostic/atheist friends challenge my beliefs. I love the opportunity to explain to them how I view my faith, but I do not like the inevitable responses I receive. My faith allows me to remain open to an infinite number of possibilities, but simply discounting the belief in something greater than human form is simply close-minded and egotistical.

There is nothing that I can say or do that will prove God's existence to someone that has no interest in having faith in such. It is a personal experience, and as much as I can't "prove" God's existence to another, they can not "prove" to me that God does not exist.

Maybe the answer your friends have high IQ but not such high EQ. I was taught as a child that a sign of intelligence is understanding how little you do know. As Socrates said... "To Know, is to know you know nothing. That is the true meaning of knowledge". That is why I find fundamentalism abhorrent. I am highly anti-religious when I see the atrocities that is done in its name. But I still can't say 100% that god does not exist and who am I to question someone else's faith. As long as they don't try and convert me. Live and Let Live is my motto.

I agree with you wholeheartedly! I have friends on both sides that are like you described. I am agnostic. It seems my hardline atheists friends are the most close minded and have almost a chip on their shoulders and there is some "hate" tone. My hardline religious friends definitely have a spiritual calmness that I respect!

I find your comment very interesting.
I am also an atheist, and I hate it. I believe that if one is intellectually honest then atheism is the only rational alternative, but also, if we are intellectually honest then we must recognize that atheism leads to nihilism. Atheists who deny nihilism annoy me to no end, and I find them not so smart, or incredibly dishonest, or worst; emotionally shallow (almost autistic). My greatest disagreement with other atheist is on the point of nihilism, something that I actually agree with theists even if I consider them delusional.
I often wander if intelligence and emotion compete for real state in our brains, and the more we have of one the less we have of the other. It would explain the apathy most modern atheists have to the meaningless of existence.

"The meaninglessness of existence" is your opinion, not fact. I guess since my opinion is different from yours, you'll consider me a "not so smart/incredibly dishonest/emotionally shallow/almost autistic" atheist (and by the way, equating autism with "emotional shallowness" is rather offensive and indicates a poor understanding of autism).

Anyway, I will admit that as an atheist, I struggled in the past to believe there could be purpose and meaning in a life that came about by pure chance. I've since come to the conclusion that while there may be no inherent meaning in life, it's our choice to give it meaning, or not. It's a cruel world full of senseless violence, natural disasters, sickness and death, sure. Yet all the same I consider it an incredible gift to be alive - just to experience it once, even if we are nothing but dust when we die, because there is so much beauty and kindness to be found in the world even with all the bad. The purpose/meaning of life for me is to make the most of the time I have on this planet - to experience and see as much as I can, and to leave the tiny portion of the world within the realm of my influence, a better place than I found it. Call it cheesy if you like but I really believe this, and I'm much happier for it than I used to be.

PS - In all honesty, you sound depressed (something I have personally experienced as well). In that case, I think you might be surprised at how drastically treatment alone can change your perceptions.

I have a feeling most people who claim to be atheists especially the young truly dont know what the term means, and are doing it to appear cool or trendy. Atheism itself does not lead to nihilism!

You prove yourself to be agnostic or even mildy theist: and thus you support the title of the discourse - you are less intelligent than the rest of us. In fact overall you sound utterly confused, and quite irritable because you do not understand the central planks clearly.

I look up at the stars and feel as much awe and wonder knowing this beauty came from nothingness as much as those who believe in some divine creation.